general geotechnical subsurface soils ... - el paso …

CQC TESTING AND ENGINEERING, L.L.C. TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION NO. F-10632

4606 TITANIC AVE. EL PASO, TEXAS 79904

PH.: (915-771-7766

FX.: (915) 771-7786

GENERAL GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE SOILS EVALUATION REPORT

FOR

EL PASO WATER – POLY ORTHOPHOSPHATE FEED PROJECTS

NORTHEAST, NEVINS, MONTANA, MCRAE & AIRPORT BOOSTER STATIONS

EL PASO, EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS CQC PROJECT NO. AGCQC18-062

PREPARED FOR

CDM SMITH 4110 RIO BRAVO, SUITE 201

EL PASO, TEXAS 79902

HUB and DBE Certified

General Geotechnical Subsurface Soils Evaluation Report CDM Smith El Paso Water – Poly Orthophosphate Feed Projects Various Locations El Paso, El Paso County, TX

CQC Project No. AGCQC18-062 CQC Testing and Engineering LLC June 4, 2019 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632 Page 1 of 36 (Final Report Date August 2, 2019)

Report Table of Contents Page No. Section 1.0 – General Project Information 4 1.1 Foundation Design Loads 4 1.2 Site Geologic Considerations 5 1.3 Existing Site Conditions, Vegetation and Topography 5 1.4 Seismic Considerations 7 1.5 Site Work Drainage Coefficients 8

Section 2.0 – Subsurface Exploration Evaluation Methods and Testing 8 2.1 Laboratory Engineering Soil Classification Testing 9 2.2 Soil Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results 10 Section 3.0 – Subsurface Soil Classification and Strength Considerations 11 3.1 Groundwater Depth Considerations 14 3.2 Soil Related Movement Considerations 15 Section 4.0 – General Foundation Design Considerations 15 4.1 General Structure Subgrade Preparation 16 4.2 Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity and Fill Support 17 4.3 Floor Slab Design Considerations 20 4.4 General Flat Work Considerations 21 4.5 Below Grade Lateral Pressures 21 4.6 Manhole Structure Considerations 23

Section 5.0 – Pavement Section Considerations 23 5.1 Flexible Pavement Structure Considerations 23 5.2 Rigid Concrete Pavement Structure Considerations 25 5.3 Curbs 26 Section 5.0 – General Building Design Considerations 27 Section 6.0 – Additional Design and Construction Considerations 28 Section 8.0 – Project Specification Information 29 8.1 Fill Materials 29 8.2 Subsurface Soil Preparation and Considerations 32

8.3 Construction Materials Testing 33 Section 9.0 – Soils Evaluation Report Considerations and Limitations 34 Section 10.0 – General List of Technical References 35



List of Tables

Page No. Table 1 - General Site Description & Visual Topography and Vegetation Comments 6

Table 2 - Seismic Ground Motion Design Values 7

Table 3 – Site Work Drainage Coefficients 8

Table 4 – Summary of Subsurface Vertical Boring Site Evaluation 9

Table 5 – Summary of Performed Engineering Soil Classification Tests 10

Table 6 – Summary of Soil Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results 10

Table 7 – Northeast Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength 11

Table 8 – Nevins Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength 11

Table 9 – Montana Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength 12

Table 10 – McRae Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength 13

Table 11 – Airport Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength 13

Table 12 - Chemical Building & Tank Containment Area - Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity

and Min. Select Fill Support 18

Table 13 – Meter Vault - Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity and Min. Select Fill Support 18

Table 14 – Northeast / Montana / McRae / Airport - Earth Pressure Coefficients 22

Table 15 – Nevins Booster Station - Earth Pressure Coefficients 22

Table 16 – Montana Booster Station - Driveways – Flexible Pavement Sections 24

Table 17 – Montana Booster Station - Driveways – Flexible Pavement Sections 24

Table 18 – Rigid Pavement Recommendations – Driveway Area 25

Table 19 – Select Fill Gradation Requirements 29

Table 20 – Native Fill Soil Gradation Requirements 30



List of Appendices

Appendix A. Sheet No.’s

General Exploration Boring Location Aerial Plans A1-1 –A1-5

Soil Exploration Boring Logs A2 – A6

Soil Sample Particle Size Analysis Test Reports A7 – A11

Summary of Laboratory Engineering Soil Classification Test Results A12

Soil Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results A13 - A17

Appendix B.

Geotechnical Report Technical Reference Information B1

Soil Classification Chart B2

Geotechnical Report Soil Classification Reference Information B3



Section 1.0 – General Project Information

This general subsurface soils evaluation report has been prepared for the use of CDM Smith.

(Client) for the El Paso Water Poly Orthophosphate Feed Projects. Based on general information and an

aerial site plan of each site provided by our Client, we understand that the project consists of the design

and construction of a pump station meter vault, tank containment area and single story chemical injection

building to be located at the existing EPW- Montana, Nevins, Airport, McRae, and Northeast Booster

Stations in El Paso, El Paso County, Texas. It is our understanding that the buildings shall be single-story

aluminum structures with an approximate footprint of about 240 square feet. The above ground tank is

anticipated to hold about 35,000 lbs of liquid. It is our understanding that pavement improvements shall

also be performed at the Montana and McRae booster stations.

As requested, our scope of services for this project consisted of generally evaluating the

subsurface soil conditions within each of the proposed new construction areas at each site by performing

subsurface exploration vertical borings, collecting soil samples, conducting Standard Penetration Tests

(SPT) and laboratory soil classification tests to provide guideline geotechnical recommendations with

respect to soil improvement and allowable soil bearing capacity information.

The following sections of this report present our field evaluation methods, site soil-related

considerations, site preparation, geotechnical recommendations to guide the design of foundations

structures for these projects. Please note that the entire report should be read for a thorough

understanding of our evaluation, findings and guideline recommendations. CQC Testing and

Engineering, LLC (CQC) should be contacted through a written statement if our stated understanding of

the project and proposed civil site work and building structure is not correct and/or if the owner changes

the structure locations at each site. Site changes may result in our recommendations to be invalid without

further review by CQC.

1.1 – Foundation Design Loads

At the time that this report was completed, structural loads were not available for our review.

However, It is our understanding that the above ground tank is anticipated to hold about 35,000 lbs of

liquid and based on our experience with similar projects, we have assumed that the new buildings shall

create maximum column and wall loads of up to 15 kips and 1.0 kip/foot, respectively. In the event that

these loads vary significantly from the final design loads, CQC should be contacted immediately to



reevaluate our recommendations with respect to allowable soil bearing capacities and soil support

improvement.

1.2 - Site Geologic Considerations

The Geologic Atlas of Texas (Van Horn-El Paso Sheet, Revised 1983) published by the Bureau

of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin indicates that that the project sites are located

within an area of Young Quaternary (Qb) and Windblown sand (Qws) deposits which typically consist of

lacustrine, fluviatile and areas of large dunes. Soil deposits such as clay, silt, sand, gypsum and caliche

are typically encountered within these geologic formations. The gypsum formations may consist of

collapsible soils which are prone to vertical settlement when saturated with moisture. These deposits are

usually variable over relatively short distances.

Based on our past experience it should be considered that it is possible to encounter very dense

to hard caliche formations within the project sites. This is specifically true for the Northeast, McRae and

Airport booster stations where a dense caliche layer was encountered at approximately 2 ½ feet and

extending to approximately 6 ½ feet below the existing ground surface elevation. These formations are

typically very difficult to excavate and shall require relatively heavy excavation equipment. These

formations are encountered within the upper 6 ½ feet and are not considered suitable Select Fill or

Backfill soils. The geologic atlas also indicated that fault zones are located northeast of the general project

areas.

It has been reported that no significant ground movement caused by the existing faults has been

recorded for the past 50 years in the El Paso area. Although the local seismic observatory at the

University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) has indicated that, the frequency of recordable ground movements

has increased within the last few years.

1.3 – Existing Site Conditions, Vegetation and Topography

The following table summarizes our general comments with respect to the visual topography at

each pump station site.



Table 1 - General Site Description & Visual Topography and Vegetation Comments

Location General Comments

Northeast

The site is located in the southeast corner of Sean Haggerty Drive and McCombs

Street. Based on our general site observations, the topography within the project site

is relatively flat. The existing booster station structures are located to the north of the

proposed new building/storage tank. The site is currently covered with weeds and

perennial grass.

Nevins

The site is located in the northeast corner of Woodrow Bean Transmountain Drive and

Girl Scouts Way. The site is bounded by residential building to the west and an

apartment complex to the east. Based on our general site observations, the

topography within the project site is relatively flat. The existing booster station

structures are located to the north and southeast of the proposed new building/storage

tank. The site is currently covered with weeds and perennial grass

Montana

The site is located west of Montana Avenue & Global Reach Drive. Based on our

general site observations, the topography within the project site is relatively flat. The

existing booster station structures are located to the west and east of the proposed

new building/storage tank. The site is currently covered with weeds and perennial

grass.

McRae

The site is located in the north of Carnegie Avenue and Sam Moore. The site is

bounded by commercial buildings to the west and south. Based on our general site

observations, the topography within the project site is relatively flat. The existing

booster station structures are located to the north and east of the proposed new

building/storage tank. The site is currently covered with weeds and perennial grass.

Airport

The site is located in the southeast corner of Continental Drive and Convair Road.

Based on our general site observations, the topography within the project site is

relatively flat. The existing booster station structures are located to the south and

southeast of the proposed new building/storage tank. The site is currently covered

with weeds and perennial grass.

It appears that the project construction areas have been graded and modified from their original

natural state to some degree. CQC was not provided any historical survey plans, historical topographic

surveys, historical photographs, historical grading plans, environmental reports or construction reports

for review from our Client or design representatives. Therefore, CQC has no knowledge if previous site



excavations or fill required to construct the buildings and utility infrastructure were appropriately backfilled

with suitable soils and tested for compaction verification.

1.4 – Seismic Considerations

Based on our review of the current International Building Code and Site Classification for Seismic

Design Definitions in conjunction with our review of the geologic conditions in the pump station areas, it

is our professional opinion that a Site Class D may be used for the sites. Please note that a geologic

atlas of the area was used to supplement our review since our borings were performed to a maximum

depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surface elevations and the building code considers the average

soil properties in the top 100 feet of the subject site. In the event that the owner and/or design

representative is interested in determining the building code Site Class with a higher degree of accuracy,

additional tests beyond our original requested scope of work shall be required.

Based on a Soil Site Class D, seismic ground motion values were determined and are defined in

the table below. The seismic coefficients were generated through Seismic Design Maps, a USGS web

service developed by the Structural Engineers Association of California’s (SEAOC) and California’s Office

of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). The values should be verified by the project

structural engineer prior to use in structural analysis. CQC should be informed if the reported values vary

significantly.

Table 2 - Seismic Ground Motion Design Values

Location Latitude Longitude Period

(Seconds)

Spectral

Accelerations

(g)

Site

Coefficient,

Fa

Site

Coefficient,

Fv

Northeast 31.92742893 -106.40667257 0.2 (Ss) 0.336 1.531 -

1.0 (S1) 0.110 - 2.380

Nevins 31.89966531 -106.42329572 0.2 (Ss) 0.335 1.532 -

1.0 (S1) 0.11 - 2.380

Montana 31.79768337 -106.34287259 0.2 (Ss) 0.322 1.542 -

1.0 (S1) 0.104 - 2.391

McRae 31.79702793 -106.36124226 0.2 (Ss) 0.326 1.539 -

1.0 (S1) 0.106 - 2.389

Airport 31.79702793 -106.36124226 0.2 (Ss) 0.326 1.539 -

1.0 (S1) 0.106 - 2.389



1.5 – Site Work Drainage Coefficients

Based on our understanding of the proposed improvements, the table below presents some

suggested surface runoff coefficients based on the rational formula.

Table 3 – Site Work Drainage Coefficients

Land Use (Surface) Runoff Coefficient (C) [1]

Unimproved Areas 0.10 – 0.30

Driveways and Walkways 0.75 – 0.95

Roofs 0.75 – 0.95

Asphalt Paved Areas 0.85 – 0.95

Concrete Paved Areas 0.90 – 0.95

Landscaped Areas (sandy soil-flat 2%) 0.05 – 0.10

Note [1]: Based on TXDOT Hydraulic Design Manual - Version July 2016.

These values may be considered for drainage design. We shall note that generally larger areas

with permeable soils and relatively flat slopes should have the lowest “C” values.

Section 2.0 – Subsurface Exploration Evaluation Methods and Testing

The subsurface soils within each project site were evaluated by completing a total of five (5)

subsurface exploration vertical borings with a truck mounted drilling rig. The approximate locations are

shown in the “General Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Boring Location Aerial Plans” presented in

Appendix A, Sheets A1-1 through A1-5. A summary of our subsurface vertical boring site evaluations is

reported below in Table 2. In general, the borings were completed below the existing ground surface

elevation at the time of our drilling activities. The vertical borings were logged during our drilling

operations by a member of our geotechnical engineering staff. Our boring logs are presented in Sheets

A2 through A6.

During our drilling operations Standard Penetration Tests (SPT’s) were performed in general

conformance with ASTM D 1586. Soil samples were collected within a split-spoon sampler at discrete

depth intervals and were containerized and transported to our laboratory for further observation and

engineering soil classification testing on selected samples. Our engineering soil classification tests (i.e.,

moisture contents, soil particle size analysis and Atterberg Limit Tests) were performed in accordance

with accepted ASTM test procedures D 2216, D 1140, D 2217, D 6913, and D 4318, respectively. In

general, the results of our tests and estimated “N-Values” are presented in our soil boring logs and

Summary of Laboratory Engineering Soil Classification Test Results in Sheet A12. At the completion of



our drilling activities, the borings were backfilled with auger cuttings and firmly compacted at the ground

surface.

The following table summarizes the completion depth of our borings, type of samples, number of

soil samples collected, and observed groundwater depths at the time of our drilling operations.

Table 4 – Summary of Subsurface Vertical Boring Site Evaluation

Summary of Soils Evaluation

Location Borehole

No.

Approximate Termination

Depth (ft.)

No. Split-Spoon Samples

No. Grab Samples

Approx. Observed

Groundwater Depth (ft.)

Northeast B-1 20 7 - NE

Nevins B-2 20 7 - NE

Montana B-3 20 7 - NE

McRae B-4 20 7 - NE

Airport B-5 20 7 - NE

NE- Not encountered immediately at the completion of our drilling activities.

Contractors interested in bidding the project shall perform their own tests to verify the types of

materials or review historical plans of the area to evaluate the excavation requirements prior to bidding

the project. The owner shall not incur additional costs for additional excavations or removal of

encountered variable unclassified soils, buried materials or utilities, as applicable.

Please note that the collected soil samples from our soils evaluation shall be stored for a period

of up to 60 days after the submittal of this report, if a longer period of storage is required by our Client,

CQC should be informed in writing.

2.1 - Laboratory Engineering Soil Classification Testing

In the laboratory, selected soil samples were evaluated and visually classified by our geotechnical

engineering staff in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The

geotechnical engineering properties of selected soil samples were evaluated by the following tests:



Table 5 – Summary of Performed Engineering Soil Classification Tests

Type of Test Total Number

Conducted

Moisture Content Tests 21

Atterberg Limit Tests 12

Soil Particle Size Analysis Tests 21

Soil Moisture-Density Relationship Tests 5

Selected soil particle size analysis test results are reported in Sheets A7 through A11. As

previously indicated, a summary of our laboratory engineering soil classification test results is reported

in Sheet A12 for ease of reference.

2.2 – Soil Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results

At the time of our drilling activities, a total of five (5) bulk soil samples were obtained from each

booster station for soil moisture-density relationship testing. The samples were collected during our

drilling activities from auger cuttings from approximately the ground surface to approximately 5 feet. The

test results are reported in Sheets A13 through A17. A summary of the results are presented in the table

below.

Table 6 – Summary of Soil Moisture-Density Relationship Test Results

Borehole No. Approx. Sample

Depth (ft)

ASTM D 1557,

Method Soil Classification

Opt. Dry

Density (pcf)

Opt. Moisture (%)

B-1 0 – 5 A

Fine to Coarse Grained, Whitish Brown to Light Brown, Clayey Sand with calcareous material.

(SC)

122.4 11.0

B-2 0 – 5 A Fine to Coarse Grained, Whitish Brown to Tannish Brown, Clayey

Sand with clay nodules. (SC) 123.7 10.0

B-3 0 – 5 A Fine to Medium Grained, Reddish Brown to Tannish Brown, Clayey

Sand. (SC) 123.4 10.7

B-4 0 – 5 A

Fine to Coarse Grained, Whitish Brown to Tannish Brown, Clayey Sand with calcareous material.

(SC)

123.8 9.9

B-5 0 – 5 B Fine to Medium Grained, Dark

Brown to Tannish Brown, Clayey Sand. (SC)

118.7 12.2



Section 3.0 – Subsurface Soil Classification and Strength Considerations

Based on our soil classifications and laboratory tests, the subsurface soils encountered in our

exploration borings may be described by the generalized soil stratums presented in the following tables.

The logged depth of the soil formation types is approximately delineated in our boring logs. Due to the

geologic location of the site, it is possible for variations in the types and depths of the soil formations to

occur over relatively short distances.

Table 7 – Northeast Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength

Stratum General Description Consistency (SPT Blow

Counts)

Moisture Content

(%)

Atterberg Limits %Passing

No. 200 USCS Classification

Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

I

Silty Sands and/or Poorly Graded Sands, Fine to

Medium Grained with silt & gravel.

Loose to Dense (10 to

32) 1.2 to 4.3 Non-Plastic 6 to 27 SM and SP-SM

Remarks: These soils shall be susceptible to soil sloughing during excavations. These soils are considered Class III

Pipe Backfill soil materials. These soils were encountered at the surface and below 10 feet.

II

Clayey Sands, Fine to Coarse Grained with calcareous material

Medium Dense to Dense

(19 to 31)

6.0 39 18 43 SC

Remarks: These soils shall be blended with suitable relatively non-plastic sands to meet the Select Fill Requirements. Blending shall be required to reduce the plasticity of the native clayey soils. These soils are considered Class III Pipe Backfill soils materials, however, confirmation testing shall be performed at the time of construction. These soils were encountered interbedded below Stratum I soils at approximately 2 ½ feet extending to approximately 10 feet.

Table 8 – Nevins Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength

Stratum General Description

Consistency (SPT Blow

Counts)

Moisture Content

(%)



Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

I

Silty Sand, Fine to Medium Grained.

Medium Dense (20)

7.2 Non- Plastic 17 SM


Pipe Backfill soil materials. These soils were encountered interbedded below Stratum II & III at approximately 18 ½ feet.

II Clayey Sands, Fine to Coarse Grained with

clay nodules.

Medium Dense

(24 to 27) 11.0 34 21 49 SC



Remarks: These soils shall be blended with suitable relatively non-plastic sands to meet the Select Fill Requirements. Blending shall be required to reduce the plasticity of the native clayey soils. These soils are considered Class III Pipe Backfill soils materials, however confirmation testing shall be performed at the time of construction. These soils were encountered interbedded below Stratum III soils at approximately 10 feet extending to 18 ½ feet.

III

Sandy, Moderate Plasticity Clay.

Medium Stiff to Stiff

(6 to 14) 8.5 to 14.5 35 to 25 13 to 21 53 to 55 CL

Pocket Penetrometer Reading (tsf) 4.0

Remarks: These soils are not considered suitable for use as Select Fill and Backfill soil materials. These clayey soils

are considered Class IV soils materials. This Soil Stratum was encountered at the surface and extends to approximately 7 ½ feet.

Table 9 – Montana Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength

Stratum General Description

Consistency (SPT Blow

Counts)

Moisture Content

(%)



Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

I

Poorly Graded Sands, Fine to Coarse Grained

with silt.

Medium Dense (20)

14.5 Non- Plastic 12 SP-SM


Pipe Backfill soil materials. These soils were encountered interbedded below Stratum II & III soils at approximately 7 ½ to 15 feet and at approximately 18 ½ feet.

II

Clayey Sands, Fine to Medium Grained

Loose to Medium Dense

(10 to 16)

7.5 to 9.7 32 to 33 13 to 15 23 to 26 SC

Remarks: These soils shall be blended with suitable relatively non-plastic sands to meet the Select Fill Requirements. Blending shall be required to reduce the plasticity of the native clayey soils. These soils are considered Class III Pipe Backfill soils materials, however confirmation testing shall be performed at the time of construction. This Soil Stratum was encountered at the surface and extends to approximately 7 ½ feet.

III

High Plasticity Fat Clay with calcareous

material.

Very Stiff (27)

27.6 128 104 95 CH

Pocket Penetrometer Reading (tsf) 3.5

Remarks: This Soil Stratum was encountered in boring B-3 interbedded below Stratum II soils at approximately 15 feet. These soils are not considered suitable for use as Select Fill and Backfill soil materials. These clayey soils are

considered Class IV soils materials. These soils were encountered interbedded below Stratum I soils at approximately 15 feet and extends to approximately 18 ½ feet.



Table 10 – McRae Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength


Counts)

Moisture Content

(%)



Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

I

Silty Sands and/or Poorly Graded Sands, Fine to

Coarse Grained with silt & gravel.

Medium Dense to

Very Dense (11 to 52)

0.5 to 3.6 Non- Plastic 3 to 19 SM, SP and SP-SM


Pipe Backfill soil materials. This Soil Stratum was encountered at the surface and extends to approximately 2 ½ feet and below Stratum II soils at approximately 15 feet.

II

Clayey Sands, Fine to Coarse Grained with calcareous material

Medium Dense to

Very Dense (24 to 73)

8.2 to 12.1 37 to

40 15 to 22 26 to 39 SC

Remarks: These soils shall be blended with suitable relatively non-plastic sands to meet the Select Fill Requirements. Blending

shall be required to reduce the plasticity of the native clayey soils. These soils are considered Class III Pipe Backfill soils materials, however confirmation testing shall be performed at the time of construction. These soils were encountered interbedded below Stratum I soils at approximately 2 ½ feet and extend to approximately 15 feet.

Table 11 –Airport Booster Station - Summary of Subsurface Soil Classification & Strength


Counts)

Moisture Content

(%)



Liquid Limit

Plasticity Index

I

Poorly Graded Sands, Fine to Coarse Grained with silt &

fine gravel.

Medium Dense to

Dense (19 to 49)

2.1 to 3.5 Non- Plastic 5 to 9 SP-SM


Pipe Backfill soil materials. These soils were encountered interbedded below Stratum II soils at approximately at approximately 10 feet.

II

Clayey Sands, Fine to Medium Grained with calcareous material

Medium Dense to Dense

(17 to 34)

7.2 to 9.6 27 to

32 11 to 12 26 to 32 SC

Remarks: These soils shall be blended with suitable relatively non-plastic sands to meet the Select Fill Requirements. Blending shall be required to reduce the plasticity of the native clayey soils. These soils are considered Class III Pipe Backfill soils materials, however confirmation testing shall be performed at the time of construction. This Soil Stratum was encountered at the surface and extend to approximately 10 feet.



Encountered soil zones in a loose condition shall be susceptible to elastic settlement when

exposed to structure gross bearing loads and saturated with moisture. Relatively loose or medium

stiff soil zones were encountered at the Nevins booster station site. It is recommended the

subsurface soils that shall support foundation structures be over-excavated and re-compacted or

replaced with Select Fill as specified in Section 4.0 of this report.

A very dense caliche layer also appears to be located across particular areas of the Northeast,

McRae and Airport booster station sites. This layer is anticipated to require relatively heavy

equipment to excavate and shall not be suitable for Select Fill or Backfill soil materials.

Based on our laboratory results, we anticipate that the on-site soils may be suitable for re-use

provided that they meet the requirements of Select Fill presented in Section 8.0 of this report. In

general, the clearing and grubbing, removal of inorganic materials and debris shall be required. We

recommend that encountered clayey sand with a plasticity index value greater than 12 be blended

with suitable non-plastic soils to reduce their plasticity within the specified requirements. It should be

considered that over excavation and replacement of the existing soils with Select Fill at the Nevins

site shall be required.

All imported fill soil materials shall meet the Select Fill requirements of Section 8.0.

3.1 - Groundwater Depth Considerations

At the time of our drilling operations groundwater and/or water seepage was not observed or

encountered in our vertical exploration borings. Based on our geotechnical field experience in this area,

the static groundwater elevation is well below the anticipated maximum excavation depth of 8 feet for

these project sites. Please note that it is possible to encounter shallower perched water zones where

relatively high permeability soils overlay low permeability soils. In the event that perched water is

encountered at shallower depths during construction at this site, the water seepage should be

appropriately removed. If an “artesian” condition is encountered it may be bridged with suitable

Controlled Low Strength Materials (CLSM) or approved gravel rock. The proposed CLSM or gravel rock

should be approved by the engineer of record through a submittal process. In any event, CQC should

be immediately contacted to perform site observation of the noted conditions to develop additional

recommendations, if necessary. Workers shall be prohibited from working in excavations where water

has accumulated or is accumulating.



3.2 - Soil Related Movement Consideration

The results of our observations and soil classification tests were used to evaluate the Potential

Vertical Rise (PVR) of the subsurface soils in accordance with a published empirical method. This

method is used to estimate the potential vertical movements of cohesive soils based on the plasticity

index (PI) of the soil. The procedure allows the reduction of the initial estimated PVR for the existing soil

conditions and/or dry soil profile through surcharge addition (i.e., fill soil pressure or load pressures)

and/or replacement of the cohesive materials with non-plastic soils.

Based on our soil exploration results and soil classification tests, the potential soil related ground

movements for the encountered soils in our borings were estimated. Our estimates were based on the

Texas Department of Transportation, Method for Determining the Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) Tex-124-

E procedures. Based on the encountered soil moisture conditions, a surcharge pressure of at least 1 psi

and an active soil zone of 20 feet; PVR values of less than 1 inch were estimated for the clayey soils

encountered in our borings.

According to the results, the subsurface soils within the project limits exhibit a relatively low to

moderate potential for swelling. In the event that highly plastic clays are encountered at shallow depths

during earthwork activities, CQC should be contacted to observe the encountered subsurface clays. It

may be necessary for CQC to perform additional plasticity index tests to further evaluate expansion

potential of the clayey soils. Typically soil related movements impact lightly loaded floor slab structures.

The estimated PVR movements should be considered in the design of flat site work (i.e., sidewalks,

ramps, etc., and floor slabs), which shall be primarily influenced by the estimated potential vertical

movement. The dead weight and live loads imposed on load bearing foundation elements are anticipated

to be greater than the potential uplift swelling pressure of the clay formations encountered at the sites

with the exception of the high plasticity clay layer encountered at the Montana booster station site. This

soils stratum was encountered at approximately 15 below the ground surface. In the event that pockets

of these high plasticity clays are encountered at shallower depth, CQC should be contacted to review the

encountered conditions.

Section 4.0 – General Foundation Design Considerations

The following recommendations are based on the results of our exploration borings and laboratory

engineering soil classification tests performed on selected subsurface soil materials samples. The design

team may utilize the following information to evaluate potential foundation types and proportion foundation



structural elements as required for the project. Please contact CQC in the event that additional information

is required and/or if the owner or design team is considering alternative foundation types. Supplemental

changes to our recommendations within this report shall be issued through written amendments after the

submittal of this report. Please note that at the time this report was submitted structural load and detailed

specifications with respect to the planned improvements were not available for our review and

consideration in the preparation of this report.

The foundation recommendations presented below have been prepared to mitigate potential soil

settlements with practical geotechnical engineering recommendations. The variability of the subsurface

soil conditions and environmental impacts (i.e., moisture infiltration into loose subsurface soil zones with

time) may cause for estimated soil settlements to exceed 1 inch. It is highly recommended that quality

control testing be performed during the implementation of the recommended subsurface soil

improvements presented below. If variable conditions are noted at the bottom of the site excavations the

geotechnical engineer should be contacted immediately to evaluate if soil improvement excavations

should be extended deeper than anticipated.

4.1 – General Structure Subgrade Preparation

In order to mitigate potential elastic soil settlements across the proposed new meter vault, tank

containment area and chemical injection building foundation systems, the following general building pad

and over excavation backfill preparation guidelines are out lined below.

The construction areas should be cleared and grubbed as specified within the project plans

and specification. Mandatory clearing and grubbing within the structure footprint areas should

extend at least 3 feet beyond the perimeter of foundations, as achievable.

Once the site has been cleared and grubbed, in areas that shall require suitable Select Fill to

meet the specified finished floor or bottom of footing elevations, the native subgrade soils

should be scarified and recompacted to a minimum depth of 8 inches below the specified

depth of Select Fill. Recompacted subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned and

compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density determined per ASTM D-

1557. The moisture content of these soils should be maintained within ±3 percent of optimum

until permanently covered.

It should be anticipated that shoring and/or trench boxes shall be required to perform the

excavation for the meter vault structure. Excavated areas behind the structure walls shall be

backfilled with approved Select Fill soils with lifts no greater than 8 inches.



In general, structure foundations should be supported by compacted suitable Select Fill, as

recommended in Table 12. The suitable Select Fill should extend a minimum of 18 inches

beyond the footing edges, as achievable. The projected footing excavation should also be

backfilled with compacted suitable Select Fill to the specified finished grade elevations.

In general, all placed and backfilled approved Select Fill soils should be moisture conditioned,

placed in maximum 8 inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum

dry density per ASTM D-1557. The moisture content of the fill soils should be maintained

within ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until permanently covered.

The recommended physical properties and classification of suitable “Select Fill” soils are

defined in Section 8.0 of this report.

The moisture content of the fill should be strictly maintained within ±3 percent of optimum.

The moisture should be maintained until the next lift of soil is placed to the finished grade

elevation and/or bottom of footing elevation. Disturbed suitable Select Fill soils in all footings,

stem walls, plumbing trenches, electrical conduit trenches excavations within the finished

building pad should be properly compacted and retested for compaction verification at

standard frequencies or as required by the project specifications and plans.

As previously indicated, it should be anticipated that over excavation and replacement of the

existing soils with Select Fill shall be required at the Nevins booster station.

In the event that clays are encountered at the specified cut elevation below structures and site

work structures, these soils should be completely removed and replaced with Select Fill soils.

In the event that the selected general contractor and/or subcontractor elects to utilize the on-

site soils as Select Fill, it is highly recommended that suitable sandy native soils be blended

with suitable on-site or imported non-plastic silty sands to reduce their plasticity. Select Fill

qualification tests (i.e., plasticity index, soil particle size analysis test and soil-moisture density

relationship tests) shall be performed at the time of construction, prior to utilizing soils as

Select Fill backfill soils.

4.2 – Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity and Fill Support

Our engineering analysis considered that the proposed new structures may be supported by

conventional continuous footing and mat foundation systems. Based on general review of preliminary

project plans, we understand that the new meter vault walls shall be supported on continuous foundations



and the tank containment area shall supported by a mat foundation system. The new chemical building

shall be supported on a structural slab with perimeter continuous footing foundations.

The following table presents the allowable soil bearing capacities, minimum footing embedment

depths, and foundation widths that may be considered to proportion foundation systems for the specified new

structures. Our engineering analysis considered a factor of safety of at least 2 with respect to the soil

bearing capacities presented below.

Table 12 - Chemical Building & Tank Containment Area - Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity and Min. Select Fill Support

Location

Net Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity

(psf) (Continuous

footing foundations)

Net Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity

(psf) (Mat Foundation

System)

Min. Foundation Embedment Depth

(in) (Below lowest

adjacent finished grade)

Minimum Shallow Bldg. Continuous

footing width (in)

Min. Depth of Overexcavation & Compaction of

Select Fill Soil Below

Foundation Elements (in)

Northeast 2,500 2,500 18 12 18

Nevins 2,000 2,000 18 12 24

Montana 2,200 2,100 18 12 24

McRae 3,000 2,500 18 12 12

Airport 2,800 2,500 18 12 18

Table 13 – Meter Vault - Foundation Soil Bearing Capacity and Min. Select Fill Support

Location

Net Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity (psf) (Continuous footing

foundations)

Min. Foundation Embedment Depth

(Below lowest adjacent finished grade)

(feet)

Minimum Shallow Bldg. Continuous footing width (in)

Min. Depth of Overexcavation & Compaction of

Select Fill Soil Below Foundation Elements

(in)

Northeast 2,800 11 12 - 18 12

Nevins 2,500 11 12 – 18 12

Montana 2,500 11 12 – 18 12

McRae 3,000 11 12 – 18 12

Airport 3,000 11 12 - 18 12

Please note that the final design of the footing and bearing depth shall be performed by a

structural engineer. The analysis shall consider the uplift forces on each footing. An allowable coefficient

or soil friction of 0.32 and soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be used in footing analysis.



In general, exposed subgrade soils that will support compacted approved imported suitable Select

Fill, shallow foundation elements and floor slabs should be properly cleared, grubbed and cleaned of all

vegetation, organic matter, topsoil, construction debris, and/or any foreign matter. The cleared subgrade

soils with a PI less than 18 should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and re compacted to 95

percent of ASTM D 1557 at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until permanently covered. Cohesive

subgrade soils or clays (i.e., soils with a PI greater than 18) should be compacted to at least 90 percent

of maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557 with water content within 0 to 3 percentage points of optimum.

Weak or compressible soil zones identified during earthwork operations should be removed and replaced

with properly compacted suitable Select Fill to a minimum depth of 12 inches or as required to

appropriately bridge over these soils, whichever is deeper. If required, proof rolling operations should be

observed by a member of CQC to document subgrade preparation.

In areas where suitable Select Fill will be required to raise the existing grades to the finished grade

elevations, the suitable fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and

compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D 1557. The

moisture content of the fill should be maintained within a range of ±3 percent of the optimum moisture

content until permanently covered. The fill should be appropriately tested at standard frequencies or as

required by the project specifications and plans, whichever is more stringent.

Foundation steel reinforcement design should be determined by the project structural engineer.

Reinforcing steel should be checked for size and placement prior to concrete placement in accordance

with approved detailed shop drawings. Placement of concrete should be accomplished as soon as

possible after excavations to reduce changes in the moisture content or the state of stress of the

foundation materials. No foundation element should be left open over 3 days without concreting and the

moisture content of the footing trenches should be maintained daily. The contractor should also follow

the ACI recommended guidelines with respect to the placement of concrete during hot and cold weather

conditions.

Foundation Settlements

Foundation systems designed in accordance with the recommendations given above will provide

a factor of safety in excess of 2 with respect to the design soil shear strength, provided that the subgrade

and fill soils are prepared in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report. Total

settlements are anticipated to be 1 inch, provided that foundation widths are less than 10 feet in plan

dimensions. Differential settlements typically are estimated to be about 50% of the total estimated



settlement. However, differential movements across foundations may approach the magnitude of the

total settlement if loose or soft soil deposits are encountered in some areas throughout the foundation

footprint.

Drainage Considerations

Site work grading should be designed in a manner that will provide positive surface drainage and

prevent water from ponding within or adjacent to the foundations. Downspouts are recommended to

collect storm waters from the roof and direct them away from the building foundation system. In addition,

utility lines within the building should be inspected and pressure tested to ensure that water leaks are

controlled to mitigate potential foundation soil erosion and loss of support below the floor slab and footing

elements.

4.3 - Floor Slab Design Considerations

In general, the building floor slabs for these projects may consist of a minimum 4 to 6-inch thick

reinforced concrete slab. Reinforcing within the floor slab is recommended to consist of rebar positioned

at mid-height within the slab. However, the final floor slab design should be performed by a licensed

professional structural engineer. The building floor slab should be constructed on a minimum of 18 inches

of compacted Select Fill soils. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 psi/in for prepared and compacted

Select Fill may be used for design purposes.

As applicable, in accordance with the guidelines in ACI 302.2R-06 “Guide for Concrete Slabs that

Receive Moisture – Sensitive Flooring Materials”, in moisture sensitive areas and areas where interior

floor slabs will be covered with moisture sensitive materials (such as tile or exposed concrete veneer

finishes), we recommend placing an approved polyethylene – based plastic vapor barrier with a minimum

thickness of 15 mils or as required by the Engineers specified flooring products manufacturers. The

placement of a granular fill material above or below the approved plastic vapor barrier should be considered

if the supporting suitable Select Fill shall be relatively free draining. If the suitable Select Fill and/or

underlining subgrade soils shall be relatively impermeable then the granular fill may serve as a water

reservoir for trapped moisture. The granular fill layer should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. The granular

fill should be clean, free of organic material, clay lumps, uniformly graded material and should have no

particles greater than ¾ inches, 15 to 55 percent particle sizes passing the No. 4 sieve and between 3 to

12 percent particle sizes passing the No. 200 sieve.



Monolithically poured foundation/floor slab systems are estimated to settle similar to estimates

provided under the foundation recommendations section of this report.

4.4 – General Flat Work Considerations

Where ground-supported flat site work such as sidewalks, walkways, ramps, etc. abut rigid

buildings or isolated/suspended structures, differential movements should be anticipated. As a minimum,

we recommend that flexible joints be provided where such elements abut the main structures to allow for

differential movement. We recommend that a minimum of 12 inches of compacted Select Fill be placed

below specified flatwork structures for this project. The suitable Select Fill should be compacted to a

minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The

moisture content of

these soils should be maintained at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until covered.

Site work grading should be designed in a manner that will provide positive surface drainage and

prevent water from ponding adjacent to flat work and new building foundations. Drainage flumes and

areas where storm water will naturally be allowed to “sheet flow” should be appropriately sealed and

protected to prevent erosion of the supporting soils.

4.5 – Below Grade Lateral Earth Pressures

The proposed below grade structures or walls and pipelines related to this project will be subjected

to vertical and lateral earth pressures depending upon the type of backfill soil. The table below presents

at-rest (Ko) pressure coefficients for select backfill soils. The Ko pressures are recommended for cases

where the structures will experience little yield. Select backfill soils should meet the requirements of

Select Fill or as required by the project specifications, whichever is more stringent.

The estimated unit weights of soil in the table below may also be utilized to estimate vertical earth

loads above the buried pipes and boxes. Vehicles live loads and surcharge pressures should also be

considered in analysis, as applicable.



Table 14 – Northeast / Montana / McRae / Airport - Earth Pressure Coefficients

Soil Type

Estimated Total Unit

Weight Ranges (pcf)

Presumptive Soil Angle of

Internal Friction

Ranges (, deg)

Lateral Earth Pressure

Coefficients


Coefficients

Equivalent Fluid

Weight (pcf)

Equivalent Fluid

Weight (pcf)

At-Rest (K o) Active (K a) At-Rest (K o) Active (K a)

Structural Fill 145 42 0.33 0.20 49 30

Select Fill

Soils (Select Backfill Soil) (PI<15)

125 32 0.47 0.31 59 39

Silty Sands 115 30 0.50 0.33 57 38

Poorly Graded Sands

110 30 0.50 0.33 55 36

Clayey Sand 115 - 0.47 0.31 54 35

Table 15 – Nevins Booster Station - Earth Pressure Coefficients

Soil Type

Estimated Total Unit

Weight Ranges (pcf)

Presumptive Soil Angle of

Internal Friction

Ranges (, deg)


Coefficients


Coefficients

Equivalent Fluid

Weight (pcf)

Equivalent Fluid

Weight (pcf)

At-Rest (K o) Active (K a) At-Rest (K o) Active (K a)

Structural Fill 145 42 0.33 0.20 49 30

Select Fill

Soils (Select Backfill Soil) (PI<15)

125 32 0.47 0.31 59 39

Clays 120 - 0.80 0.66 96 80

In general, lateral pressure with depth may be estimated with the following equation;

Ps = KoƔs (H-Hw ) + Ko(Ɣs -Ɣw )Hw + ƔwHw + q Ko

Where; P = lateral earth pressure at calculated depth, psf Ko = At-rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (typically used for long-term cases)

Ɣs = Total wet unit weight of soil, pcf H = Depth of structure from ground surface to calculated depth, ft Hw = Positive vertical downward depth of water from reported highest depth. Note when calculation depth is above reported water depth, then Hw term in equation is considered zero Ɣw = Unit weight of water, pcf q = surcharge pressure, psf (typical only considered to 20 feet) light loads (i.e., pedestrians and soil stockpiles) – 50 psf,



moderate (i.e., light equipment) – 150 psf, heavy (i.e., heavy duty equipment) – 250 psf or more

4.6 – Manhole Structures Considerations

Based on the understanding of the project, we anticipate that meter vault improvements shall

include the installation of manholes. We recommend that manhole bases be supported by a minimum of

8 inches of compacted Structural Fill material, TXDOT Standard Specification 2014-Item 247, Type A,

Grade 3. The Structural Fill shall be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 6 inches to allow proper

consolidation of the backfill material. The Structural Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of

the maximum dry density as per ASTM D 1557. The suitable subgrade soils that shall support the base

coarse material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557.

The moisture content of the subgrade soils shall be maintained within ± 3 percent of optimum moisture

content until permanently covered.

Section 5.0 – Pavement Section Considerations

The following section presents our pavement recommendations based on the results of our

subsurface exploration borings and laboratory engineering soil classification tests. The design team may

utilize the following information to develop pavement section designs and material specifications.

5.1 – Flexible Pavement Structure Considerations

Our pavement analysis was based on American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials (AASHTO) design procedures. A minimum CBR value of 10 was used in our pavement analysis

and design.

It should be anticipated that pavement rehabilitation shall be required after about 5 years to obtain

the 20-year pavement service life. Our pavement recommendations also assume that positive surface

drainage will be provided and that construction materials testing and monitoring will be provided during

construction. The following table presents our asphaltic-concrete pavement section recommendations

and lists the minimum pavement thicknesses and specifications:



Table 16 – Montana Booster Station - Driveways – Flexible Pavement Section

Material

Layer Material Section Type

Minimum Thickness

(in.)

1 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC), TxDOT, Item 340 - Type C1] 3

2

TXDOT Item 310 – CSS-1H (Residual Asphalt Non-Diluted). Application

rate at 0.15 to 0.20 gal/yd -

Flexible Base Material TXDOT Item 247, Type A Grade 3 [2] 8

3 Scarified, Moisture Conditioned and Compacted suitable Select Fill or

Suitable Approved Subgrade Soils [3] 8

Table 17 – McRae Booster Station - Driveways – Flexible Pavement Section

Material


Minimum Thickness

(in.)

1 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete (HMAC), TxDOT, Item 340 - Type C1] 3

2

TXDOT Item 310 – CSS-1H (Residual Asphalt Non-Diluted). Application

rate at 0.15 to 0.20 gal/yd -

Flexible Base Material TXDOT Item 247, Type A Grade 3 [2] 8

3 Scarified, Moisture Conditioned and Compacted suitable Select Fill or

Suitable Approved Subgrade Soils [3] 8

[1] The approved AC material mix shall meet the requirements of TXDOT Item 340. Mix design shall be established

based on the Marshall Mix Design Method. The mix gradation and aggregate quality shall meet all the requirements specified with TXDOT Item 340. The asphaltic concrete material shall be compacted to 96% to 98% of the Marshall Value. Approved mix shall exhibit a minimum stability of 1,800, air voids within 3 to 4½ percent, and flow of 8-16. Mix production, transport and placement temperature tolerances shall be maintained as required per TXDOT Item 340. The bitumen binder grade should consist of a PG64-22 material or as provided by the AC material suppliers approved mix design for the climatic conditions of the El Paso County region.

[2] Base course should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum

of 100 percent of the maximum dry density and at a moisture content within 2 percentage points of the optimum

moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. A prime coat shall be applied to the pavement surface prior to placement of the AC layer. The prime coat shall consist of a CSS-1H (TXDOT Item 310). Application rate at 0.15 to 0.20 gal/yd2 .

[3] The base course should be supported by prepared and compacted suitable native soils that meet the requirements of Select Fill materials as specified in this report and should be placed at 95 percent of maximum dry density and at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. Imported fill should meet and be placed in accordance with the Select Fill section of this report.

The existing soils that will support compacted approved Select Fill and/or flexible base course

material should be cleared of all vegetation, organic matter, topsoil, construction debris, and/or any

foreign matter. The subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches and re-compacted to 95

percent of maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557. The moisture content of the subgrade

soils should be maintained within the range of 3 percent of optimum moisture content. Weak or



compressible soil zones identified during earthwork operations should be removed and replaced with

properly compacted Select Fill to a minimum depth of 8 inches or as required to appropriately bridge over

these soils, whichever is deeper. Proofrolling operations should be observed by a member of CQC to

document subgrade preparation.

5.2 –Rigid Concrete Pavement Structure Considerations

The specification of a rigid concrete pavement is highly recommended where heavy trucks (i.e.,

large trucks, construction equipment, trailers and semi-trucks, etc.) shall ingress and egress or where a

high volume of traffic is expected, especially in narrow and circular configured paths that are relatively

difficult to access with paving equipment. The following table presents our rigid pavement section

recommendations and lists the minimum thicknesses and specifications.

Table 18 – Rigid Pavement Recommendations – Driveway Area

Material


Minimum

Thickness

(in.)

1 Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, TXDOT Item 360 Class P 7

2 Flexible Base Material TXDOT Item 247, Type A Grade 3 [1] 4

3 Scarified, Moisture Conditioned and Compacted Suitable Native Soils. [2] 8

[1] Base course should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness and compacted to a minimum

of 98 percent of the maximum dry density and at a moisture content within 2 percentage points of the optimum

moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557.

[2] The base course should be supported by prepared and compacted suitable native soils that meet the requirements of

Select Fill materials as specified in this report and should be placed at 95 percent of maximum dry density and at ±3

percent of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557

In general concrete pavement should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi at 28

days, minimum flexural strength of 570 psi and meet the requirements of a TxDOT Class P concrete mix

design. The PCC should be air entrained to increase freeze-thaw durability. If air entrapment is desired,

we recommend that the concrete be designed with 4 percent ± 1½ percent air. The concrete should have

a maximum slump of 4 inches and should be consolidated with mechanical vibrators as required. A liquid

membrane-forming curing compound should be applied as soon as practical after broom finishing the



concrete surface. The curing compound will reduce the loss of water from the concrete. The reduction

in the rapid loss of water will reduce shrinkage cracking of the concrete.

Reinforcing within the slab is recommended to consist of rebar. The concrete reinforcing should

be placed approximately ½ the slab thickness below the surface of the slab, but not less than 2 inches.

The reinforcing should not extend across expansion joints.

Joints in concrete pavements aid in construction phasing and control the location and magnitude

of cracks. Joints should be carefully designed and constructed to ensure a good performing pavement

system, which will keep stresses within safe limits and control the formation of irregular cracks. In general

concrete pavements should be designed in accordance with the guidelines of ACI 330R-08 – “Guide for

the Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots”, especially with respect to pavement jointing and

control cracking. All control joints should be formed or sawed to a depth of at least ¼ the thickness of

the concrete slab and should have a minimum width of ⅛ inch and a maximum width of ¼ inches. Sawing

of control joints should begin as soon as the concrete will not ravel and within 8 hours of placement.

Sawcut joints should be cleaned with a high-pressure air jet and sealed with an approved elastomeric

sealant. Appropriate backer rods or backer materials should be used in each specified expansion joint

next to rigid structures and meet the requirements of the sealant manufacturer.

If possible, the pavement should develop a minimum slope of ¾ percent to provide surface

drainage. Reinforced concrete pavement should cure a minimum of 3 days or when at least 85 percent

of the specified strength is achieved before allowing automobile and truck traffic to load the pavement.

Concrete pavements should be constructed in accordance with the current TXDOT Standard Specifications.

5.3 - Curbs

In order to bridge and mitigate potential moisture changes of the subgrade, which may cause

increased vertical soil movements, we recommend that a minimum of 8 inches of compacted suitable

Select Fill soils be placed below the curb structures. The suitable Select Fill soils should be compacted

to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The

moisture content of these soils should be maintained at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until

covered.

The existing subgrade soils within the project limits that shall support compacted suitable Select

Fill below curb structures should be cleared of all vegetation, organic matter, topsoil, construction debris

and/or any foreign matter. The cleared subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches

and recompacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557



and maintained within ±3 percent of optimum moisture content until permanently covered. Weak or

compressible soil zones identified during compaction operations should be removed and replaced with

properly compacted suitable Select Fill to a minimum depth of 8 inches or as required to appropriately

bridge over these soils, whichever is deeper.

The contractor should also control or appropriately moisture condition the subgrade soils during

earthwork operations to mitigate potential subgrade pumping.

Section 6.0 – General Building Design Considerations

There are several factors that may contribute to differential movement of a foundation. Some of

those factors include the presence of fill soil and the adequacy of its placement, volumetric changes of

expansive soils, vegetation effects, and poor surface drainage. The degree with which these factors

impact the performance of the foundation and the manner in which the foundation deflects depends

greatly upon its stiffness, which is a factor of design and construction practices. Typically, when

expansive soils dry from a moistened state, the soil volume decreases (shrink). Downward movement

of a foundation can occur due to decreasing support for the foundation due to soil shrinkage. Soil water

content beneath an existing foundation can decrease due to drying of the surficial soil around the building

and vegetation removing water via root systems. Cyclical wetting and drying of the soils that support a

foundation can cause recurrent differential foundation movement. Conversely, when moisture is

introduced into these soils, the soil volume increases (swell). These swell pressures can cause upward

movement of a foundation. There are many possible moisture sources that can potentially increase the

water content of clay soils below a foundation such as utility line leaks, poor surface drainage, and roof

runoff discharge to name a few. The amount of moisture present in the soil prior to the construction of a

building can vary with seasonal weather cycles, and the extent of moisture induced volumetric changes

in the soil is dependent upon the “initial” soil water contents. If the soil beneath the foundation was

relatively wet when the foundation was constructed there may be no further swelling of the soils with the

introduction of additional water. Also, the foundation (especially the perimeter) might move downward

over time as the soils around the building dry due to weather conditions and vegetation effects.

Conversely, the foundation might tend to move upward due to increases in the water content of the

underlying soils if the foundation was constructed at a time when the soils were naturally very dry.

The surface grading should be improved to direct surface water away from the perimeter of the

foundations. Surface grading should be improved to a downward slope of at least 3 inches in the first 5



feet around the perimeter of the building to allow runoff water to move quickly away from the foundation.

If the topography around the building is not conducive to this type of grading improvement, then we

suggest the civil engineer consider installation of a French drainage or drainage swale system to move

surface water quickly away from the foundation perimeter. Care should be exercised to ensure that

drainage improvements do not adversely affect the adjacent structures or properties.

All roof downspouts should be extended to discharge at least three feet from the foundation

perimeter and to a properly graded area, allowing runoff water to drain quickly away from the foundation

perimeter.

Planting of trees around the exterior perimeter of foundation systems is not recommended, it is

well documented that the root system of trees typically extends beyond the farthest canopy edge of the

tree.

Section 7.0 – Additional Design and Construction Considerations

In excavations adjacent to existing structures, precautions should be taken not to undermine or

damage existing structures, footings, and/or utility lines. Precautions should be taken to prevent

distresses to nearby existing structures. As typically expected with construction activities and relatively

large excavation projects, a degree of vibratory impacts should be expected. Our scope of work did not

include an assessment of the condition of private structures or facilities adjacent to the project limits nor

opinions or statements of potential impacts. If the owner or our Client is concerned with these types of

potential impacts, the project specifications should include mandatory requirements for the general

contractor to develop a vibration and ground settlement monitoring plan before, during the course of

construction and after all construction activities have been completed at the project site.

Photographing and videotaping of the existing conditions prior to performing construction activities

is highly recommended for documentation purposes and monitoring of structure movements. The plan

may include the set-up of an array of monitoring points near the project site and at radial distances from

construction activities to monitor potential ground movements. It may be necessary for the contractor to

establish a contingency plan for potential observed movements to near adjacent structures. The

development of a settlement monitoring program was beyond our scope of work; however, we may meet

with our Client and owner to further discuss this issue, as required. The US Bureau of Mines, FHWA –

“Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance” manual and ASCE publications may be

referenced to establish a monitoring plan and set maximum vibration peak particle velocity (i.e., typically



less than 0.2 in/sec.) and frequency thresholds to ensure that vibrations are maintained below these limits

during construction.

Section 8.0 – Project Specification Information

8.1 – Fill Materials

A. Select Fill should consist of granular clayey, silty sands or sandy clayey, silty gravel mixtures,

free of clay lumps, deleterious materials, organic material, vegetation, roots, cobbles or boulders over 3

inches in nominal size. The Select Fill should have a liquid limit less than 35 and a plasticity index of 15

or less. The Select Fill shall also exhibit an optimum dry density of at least 120 pcf determined in

accordance with ASTM D-1557. Select Fill soils should also meet the gradation requirements below.

Table 19 – Select Fill Gradation Requirements

Sieve Size (square opening)

% Passing by Weight

3-inch 100

3/4-inch 70 – 100

No. 4 45 – 100

No. 200 5 – 45

Select Fill soils should classify as SP-SM, SM, SC, SC-SM, GM, GC, GC-GM, GP-GM, and GP-

GC in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).

Imported Flexible Base Course material shall meet the requirements of a TXDOT Item 247, Type

A, Grade 3 Flexible Base Course material.

In general, approved Select Fill shall not be placed in loose lifts greater than 8 inches. Select Fill

shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density determined per ASTM D-1557. The

moisture content of Select Fill shall be maintained within +/- 3 percent of optimum moisture content until

finally covered

B. Native Fill Soils (Existing On-Site Soils) should consist of granular clayey, silty sands or

sandy gravel mixtures, free of clay lumps, deleterious materials, vegetation, organic material, roots,

cobbles or boulders over 3 inches in nominal size. Native Fill soils are not considered suitable Select Fill

soils unless approved by the engineer of record. The Native Fill soils shall have a liquid limit less than

35 and a plasticity index of 15 or less. Suitable Native Fill soils should meet the gradation requirements

below. Native Fill soils are not considered specified Imported Select Fill soils unless they strictly meet

the requirements of Select Fill specified above and are approved by the engineer or owner for use.



Table 20 –Native Fill Soil Gradation Requirements

Sieve Size (square opening)

% Passing by Weight

3-inch 100

3/4-inch 70 – 100

No. 4 45 – 100

No. 200 3 – 45

Native Fill soils classified in the following list according to the USCS may be considered

satisfactory for use Native Fill soils: SM, SW, SC, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC-SM, GW, GP, GM, GC, GP-GM

and GP-GC, provided that these soils also meet the requirements above.

It is recommended that on-site soils classified as SP be blended with low-plasticity clayey sands

or as appropriate to mitigate potential soil sloughing during excavations in these types of soils and to

create a relatively stable blended soil material that exhibits adequate bearing capacity. The blended soils

should meet the requirements of Native Fill above.

Soils classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, OH, OL and PT or a combination of these under the USCS

classification and soils that exhibit a plasticity index greater than 15 are not considered suitable for use

as Native Fill and Select Fill soil materials.

C. Subgrade Soil Preparation

As previously indicated, the initial earthwork operations should consist of clearing and grubbing

the site of all non-suitable materials, vegetation, organic material, roots, landscaping and any debris or

as required by the project plans and specifications, whichever is most stringent. Existing subgrade soils

that will support Select Fill, shallow foundation elements, floor slabs, and site work should be cleared of

all vegetation, organic matter, topsoil, construction debris, and/or any foreign matter. The cleared

subgrade elevation should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and re-compacted to 95 percent

of ASTM D-1557 at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content. The cleared subgrade soils with a PI less

than 18 should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and recompacted to 95 percent of ASTM D

1557 at ±3 percent of optimum moisture content. Cohesive subgrade soils or clays (i.e., soils with a PI

greater than 18) should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density per ASTM D-1557

with a water content within 0 to ±3 percentage points of optimum. Weak or compressible soil zones

identified during earthwork operations should be removed and replaced with properly compacted suitable

Select Fill to a minimum depth of 12 inches or as required to appropriately bridge over these soils,



whichever is deeper. Proofrolling operations should be observed by a member of CQC to document

subgrade preparation.

D. Utility Line Backfill Soil Classifications The following soil backfill classifications are typically

designated for utility pipe backfill materials. It is not recommended that slag be utilized for the backfill

material unless approved by the engineer of record. Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV, and Class

V materials may be defined as follows:

CLASS I material may be manufactured angular, well-graded, crushed stone per ASTM D-2321

with a maximum particle size of 1½ inches. The following materials shall be acceptable under

this class designation: ASTM D-448 – Stone Sizes 4, 46, 5, 56, 57, and 6. Pea Gravel and other

uniformly graded material are not acceptable under this class. A gradation of Class I material

shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer for approval prior to use.

CLASS II material may be coarse sands and gravels per ASTM D-2487 with maximum particle

size of 1½ inches, including variously graded sands and gravels, containing less than 12 percent

fines (material passing the #200 sieve) generally granular and non-cohesive, either wet or dry.

Soil types GW, GP, SW and SP are included in this class. (i.e., typically required within pipe zone).

Proposed Class II material shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer for evaluation

and approval prior to use.

CLASS III material may be fine sands, clayey sand mixtures, clayey gravel and sand mixtures,

suitable clean native sands and gravels. Class III materials shall also be free of clay lumps,

deleterious materials, cobbles or boulders over 3-inches in nominal size. Class III materials

should have a liquid limit less than 35 and a plasticity index less than or equal to 12 and exhibit

an optimum dry density of at least 115 pcf. Soils classified in the following list according to the

USCS and ASTM may be considered satisfactory for use as Class III backfill soil materials above

the pipe zone as approved by the project engineer of record: SM, SW, SC, SP-SM, SP-SC, SC-

SM, GW, GP, GM, GC, GP-GM and GP-GC. Proposed Class III material shall be submitted by

the Contractor to the Engineer for evaluation and approval prior to use.

CLASS IV and V material may be classified as CH, CL, MH, ML, OH, OL and PT under the USCS.

These soils shall not be used as backfill materials, unless approved by the engineer of record.



8.2 - Subsurface Soil Preparation and Considerations

The following report section presents specific conditions that we have noted during our evaluation

and should be considered by our Client and design team with respect to earthwork estimates and

operations.

Special Considerations

At the time that this report was completed, a final civil design grading plan had not been provided for the review of CQC. We have prepared our recommendations based on the assumption that final grading elevations shall remain at or within ± 1 foot of the existing grade elevations. Site work should be performed in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report or as required by the project plans and specifications, whichever is more stringent.

The project Contractor shall be responsible for conducting their own tests to verify the actual depths of the soil types within the project limits to perform earthwork. The owner shall not incur additional costs for variations in the soil formations within the project limits and/or additional excavation requirements by the contractor. The boring logs and data in this report are intended for engineering design purposes. Bidding contractors may consider the information presented in this report at their own risk. If deemed necessary, bidding contractors shall collect additional subsurface material information for use and/or interpretation for earthwork or demolition estimates that comply with the project specifications and plans to complete the specified work prior to bidding.

The indicated suitability of the on-site soils and use as suitable Select Fill in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this report should be considered by the design team and bidding general contractor.

Based on our SPT data in general, the subsurface soils encountered in our borings are considered to be at a relatively loose to very dense condition.

Pipe utility installations shall be inspected for leaks to mitigate potential loss of pipe support and impacts to adjacent structures or supporting foundation systems from lateral water seepage. Water leaks may also impact subsurface clayey soil formations and increase vertical swelling soil movements, which may result in distress cracks in slabs and structural elements over time, where applicable.

Based on our soil borings and soil classification tests, the soils encountered at this site should be considered Type “C” soils under current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (Standard – 29 CFR-Part 1926.650, Subpart P- Excavations) pertaining to excavations. In excavations penetrating these soils, the non-permanent sloping and benching schemes specified for Type “C” soils under the OSHA regulations require that the excavation sidewalls be sloped no steeper than 1½:1 (horizontal: vertical). Trenches or excavations 4 feet and deeper shall require the development of a trench safety plan to protect employees and the general public. Please note that it is the contractor’s responsibility to assign a “competent” person to perform daily inspections and required documentation in accordance with OSHA regulations. In addition, OSHA limits excavations to 20 feet when excavations utilize soil benching and sloping methods and braced/shored trench box (i.e., rated) shielded systems designed by a licensed professional engineer. Trench excavations utilizing sheet piling systems or un-braced temporary shielded



systems per OSHA regulations shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer for any excavation depth in consideration to protect the health and safety of all workers and the public.

When utility lines are removed and/or installed at this site, the utility contractor should adequately overexcavate the soils in the utility line trench area and backfill with properly compacted approved on-site soils or pipe backfill soils to mitigate potential settlements caused by uncontrolled backfill during construction. In-situ and/or pipe backfill soils should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches in thickness to the finished subgrade elevation or in accordance with the project plans and specifications, whichever is more stringent and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Prior to placing the specified pipe backfill soils, the existing native soils at the bottom of the trench should be scarified and recompacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557.

8.3 - Construction Materials Testing

We recommend that construction materials inspection and testing of site work, fill placement,

footing excavations, concrete placement, and all other applicable materials and structures be performed

by CQC. The specification testing program should include the following testing frequencies as a minimum

or as required by the project specifications and plans, whichever is more stringent:

1. At least one (1) Soil Moisture-Density Relationship test (Proctor) for each type of in-situ soil and/or imported material to be used, according to ASTM D 1557. Additional soil samples for testing shall be requested by the General Contractor during the course of earthwork operations to ensure that the fill materials are maintained consistently within the specified requirements.

2. At least one (1) Soil Classification (Sieve Analysis and Atterberg Limits Test) for each type of in-

situ soil and/or imported material to be used, according to ASTM D 6913 and D 4318. Additional soil samples for testing shall be requested by the General Contractor during the course of earthwork operations to ensure that the fill materials are maintained consistently within the specified requirements.

3. A minimum of three (3) nuclear density test for each lift (8-inch loose) or suitable Select Fill and/or

soil fill material placed within the proposed building pad or 1 per 2,000 square feet, whichever gives rise to the greater number of tests, according to ASTM D 6938 or ASTM D 1556.

4. A minimum of one (1) nuclear density test per each excavated wall footing from the bottom of the

footing excavation and each lift of fill, according to ASTM D 6938 or D 1556. 5. A minimum of one (1) nuclear density test for each column footing excavation and for each lift of

fill according to ASTM D 6938 or D 1556. 6. A minimum of one (1) nuclear density test per lift at 50 lineal feet spacing for pipe bedding and

backfill operations, according to ASTM D 6938 or D 1556. 7. A minimum of one (1) nuclear density test per each lift of subgrade preparation and/or fill

placement for each drainage structure according to ASTM D 6938 or D 1556.



8. Sampling and testing for quality assurance of placed mortar, Type S (minimum compressive strength of 1800 psi) should be performed for the project. The design strength of the mortar mix shall be evaluated by collecting 6-cubes specimens for lab curing and testing in accordance with applicable ASTM procedures. At least two sets of 3 mortar cubes should be collected for every day of mortar placement or as directed by the project engineer. The mortar specimens should be tested at 7 days (2 cubes) and 28 days (4 cubes) for verification of the specified design strength or as directed by the project plans and specifications.

9. Sampling and testing for quality assurance of placed grout materials (3/8” maximum aggregate

with a minimum compressive strength of 2,500 psi) should be performed for the project. Grout field testing shall include testing for temperature and slump (8 to 10 inches maximum). The design strength of the grout mix shall be evaluated by collecting prisms specimens molded with on-site CMU blocks for lab curing and testing in accordance with applicable ASTM procedures. At least one set of four (4) grout prisms should be collected for each day’s batching or as directed by the project engineer. Grout with additives should be batched and placed in not more than 2 cubic yard volumes. The grout specimens should be tested at 7 days (1 prism) and 28 days (3 prisms) for verification of the specified design strength or as directed by the project plans and specifications.

10. Sampling and testing for quality assurance of placed concrete materials should be performed for

the project. Concrete field testing shall include testing for temperature, slump and air content (if required). The design strength of the concrete mix shall be evaluated by collecting cylindrical concrete compression test specimens for lab curing and testing in accordance with applicable ASTM procedures. At least one set of four (4) 6-inch x 12-inch or five (5) 4-inch x 8-inch concrete cylinders should be collected for every 50 cubic yards or less of poured concrete or as directed by the project engineer. The concrete specimens should be tested at 7 days (1 cylinder) and 28 days (4 cylinders) for verification of the specified design strength or as directed by the project plans and specifications. The ACI guidelines for hot weather and cold weather concreting should be followed to mitigate the potential poor performance of the concrete materials during significant periods of high (above 95° F) and low (below 35° F) temperatures.

11. The Hot-Mixed Asphaltic-Concrete (HMAC) paving materials should be tested during construction production for mix design verification. The plant produced HMAC should be sampled for each day’s production or every 20 tons of material produced and tested for compliance with the approved Marshall Mix Design or in accordance with current TXDOT construction standards per TXDOT Item 340 and to determine the laboratory density of the material. The placed HMAC mat should be tested by conducting a minimum of three field density test every 50 lf or as directed by the project engineer or project specifications.

Section 9.0 – Soils Evaluation Report Considerations and Limitations

The analysis and recommendations in this report are based on the data obtained from five (5)

subsurface exploration vertical borings performed at the approximate locations indicated on the attached

General Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Boring Location Aerial Plan, Sheets A1-1 through A1-5.

This report may not reflect all the variations that may occur between the subsurface exploration vertical



borings. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until during the course of

construction. If variations appear during construction, CQC should be contacted immediately, it may be

necessary for a reevaluation of our recommendations provided within this report to be made after

performing on-site observations during the construction period and noting the characteristics of any

variations. No other information relevant to the project site history or known conditions of concern were

discussed or disclosed to CQC by our Client or design representatives.

The scope of our soil evaluation did not include surveying services, ground water study, sinkhole

study, landslide study, geotechnical recommendations related to the design of stormwater collection

ponds, soil slope stability analysis, delineation of buried materials, preparation of engineering plans,

specifications, cost estimates, an environmental assessment of the property's air, soil, water, site fault

delineation and evaluation, preparation of a dewatering plan, trench safety and/or shoring plan,

delineation of subsurface flowing water or rock conditions either on or adjacent to the project site limits,

therefore no opinions and/or conclusions are presented in this report. Our geotechnical scope of work

for this site did not include an environmental assessment or chemical testing and analysis of the

subsurface soils.

Section 10.0 – General List of Technical References

1.) Dietrich, J. W., Owen, D. E., Shelby, C. A., & Barnes, V.E. (1995). Geologic Atlas of Texas, Van Horn-El Paso Sheet. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin Bureau of Economic Geology 2.) Coduto, Donald P. (1994). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 3.) Coduto, Donald P. (2001). Foundation Design: Principles and Practices. 2nd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 4.) Holtz, Robert D., Kovacs, William D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 5.) Bowles, Joseph E. (1996). Foundation Analysis and Design. 5th edition. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 6.) International Code Council, Inc. International Building Code. Country Club, IL: International Code Council, Inc. 7.) U.S. Department of Labor-Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Part 1926 – Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Washington, DC.



8.) American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D 6151. Standard Practice for Using Hollow-Stem Augers for Geotechnical Exploration and Soil Sampling. Volume 04.09. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International 9.) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

10.) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part 2B: Tests. 30th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

11.) Texas Department of Transportation. (November 2014). Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Transportation 12.) Texas Department of Transportation. Test Procedures: 100-E Series through 1100-T Series. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.txdot.gov/business/contractors_consultants/test_procedures.htm D:\Dropbox\CQC Files\CQC Working Files\GEO\Reports\2018\18-062 EPW-Orthophosphate Feed Proj (CDM Smith)\07-Final Report Documents\18-062_Report_Final.docx

http://www.txdot.gov/business/contractors_consultants/test_procedures.htm

Construction Materials Testing Geotechnical Engineering

Environmental Site AssessmentsForensic Analysis/Testing

APPENDIX A

“People Committed to Delivering Top-Quality Services Consistently”

Client: CDA Smith

CQC Project No. AGCQC18-062

Scale: NTS Check by: JR

Date: 4/22/19 Sheet A1-1

General Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Boring Location Aerial Plan

EPW – Poly Orthophosphate Feed Booster Station Project

Northeast Booster Station El

Paso, E l Pas o County, Texas

LEGEND

B-1: Boring Number,and ApproximateLocation and Depth

B-1 (20’)

As per Client, approximate Boundary of

the Project Site

McC

om

bs S

treet

Note *: Soil boring location provided by Client. Indicated location is approximate.

Client: CDA Smith






Nevins Booster Station

El Paso, El Paso County, Texas


the Project Site

Woodrow Bean

LEGEND


B-2 (20’)


Client: CDA Smith






Montana Booster Station


LEGEND

B-1: Boring Number,and Approximate

Location and Depth

B-3 (20’)


As per Client, approximate

Boundary of the

Project Site

Client: CDA Smith






McRae Booster Station


B-4 (20’)


the Project Site


LEGEND


Client: CDA Smith






Airport Booster Station


B-5 (20’)

As per Client, approximate

Boundary of the Project Site

Con

vair R

oa

d

Continental Drive

LEGEND



SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

27

43

14

6

18

96

94

76

82

4.3

6.0

1.2

1.2

5-5-5(10)

12-13-18(31)

12-14-13(27)

10-8-11(19)

15-9-12(21)

26-12-20(32)

31-11-21(32)

SM

SC

SM

SP-SM

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Silty, Dark Brown toTannish Brown, Loose, Moist with traces of organicmaterial.

SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Clayey, WhittishBrown to Light Brown, Dense, Slightly Moist to Moistwith calcareous material.- Dense caliche layer below approxiamtely 2-1/2 feet.Layer appears to extend from about 2-1/2 to 4 feet.

- Medium dense below approx. 5 feet.

SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Silty, Tannish Brown to Light Brown, Medium Dense, Dry with gravel.

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Poorly Graded, Grayish Brown to Multicolored, Dense, Dry with silt and fine gravel.

NOTE: SS- Split Spoon SampleBottom of borehole at 20.0 feet.

NOTES Boring Location: See Attached Boring Location Plan, Sheet A1-1

LOGGED BY VA

DRILLING METHOD CME-75 w/ 4-1/4" ID HSA

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY JLA

DATE STARTED 4/9/19

AT TIME OF DRILLING ---

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

HOLE SIZE 9 inchesGROUND ELEVATION Ext. Grade

DRILLING CONTRACTOR CQC

COMPLETED 4/9/19

DRILLED BY MN

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

% -

200

PI

(LL-

PL)

Sheet A2

% -

4

% M

oist

ure

Con

tent

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

US

CS

% - 200 20 40 60 80

16 32 48 64

PL LLMC

SPT N VALUE 10 20 30 40

Poc

ket

Pen

.(t

sf)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

BORING NUMBER B-1

CLIENT CDM Smith

PROJECT NUMBER AGCQC18-062

PROJECT NAME EPW - Poly Orthophophate Feed Projects

PROJECT LOCATION El Paso, El Paso County, Texas

CQ

C S

TA

ND

AR

D L

OG

W/ P

OC

KE

T P

EN

18-

062_

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT

CQC Testing and Engineering LLC - TBPE Firm No. F-106324606 Titanic AvenueEl Paso, Texas 79904Ph: (915) 771-7766Fx: (915) 771-7786

Northeast Booster Station

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

53

55

49

17

13

21

21

99

96

92

94

8.5

14.5

11.0

7.2

5-5-5(10)

3-3-3(6)

3-5-7(12)

5-5-9(14)

10-12-15(27)

8-12-12(24)

9-11-9(20)

CL

CL

SC

SM

4.0

CLAY, Sandy, Moderate Plasticity, Dark Brown to Light Brown, Stiff, Slightly Moist.

- Medium stiff at approx. 2-1/2 feet.

- Encountered clayey soils shall be susceptible toconsolidation settlement.

- Stiff below approx. 5 feet.

SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Clayey, Whittish Brown to Tannish Brown, Loose, Moist with clay nodules.

- Tannish brown to light brown at approx. 15 feet.

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Silty, Dark Brown toLight Brown, Medium Dense, Moist.



LOGGED BY VA



CHECKED BY JLA

DATE STARTED 4/9/19



AFTER DRILLING ---



COMPLETED 4/9/19

DRILLED BY MN

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

% -

200

PI

(LL-

PL)

Sheet A3

% -

4

% M

oist

ure

Con

tent

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

US

CS

% - 200 20 40 60 80

16 32 48 64

PL LLMC

SPT N VALUE 10 20 30 40

Poc

ket

Pen

.(t

sf)


BORING NUMBER B-2

CLIENT CDM Smith




CQ

C S

TA

ND

AR

D L

OG

W/ P

OC

KE

T P

EN

18-

062_

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT



SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

23

26

12

95

13

15

NP

104

98

100

86

100

7.5

9.7

14.5

27.6

4-6-8(14)

5-5-5(10)

6-7-9(16)

5-10-10(20)

7-10-10(20)

5-11-16(27)

12-26-31(57)

SC

SC

SP-SM

CH3.5

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Clayey, Reddish Brown to Tannish Brown, Medium Dense, Moist.

- Loose at approx. 2-1/2 feet.

- Encountered loose sandy soils shall be susceptibleto soil sloughing and elastic settlement.

- Medium dense, tannish brown to light brown belowapprox. 5 feet.

SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Poorly Graded, DarkBrown to Light Brown, Medium Dense, Very Moist withsilt.

- with calcareous material below approx. 10 feet.

FAT CLAY, High Plasticity, Dark Brown, Very Stiff, Slightly Moist with calcareous material.

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Poorly Graded, Grayish Brown to Multicolored, Very Dense, Dry.

NOTE: SS- Split Spoon Sample

Bottom of borehole at 20.0 feet.


LOGGED BY VA



CHECKED BY JLA

DATE STARTED 4/10/19



AFTER DRILLING ---



COMPLETED 4/10/19

DRILLED BY MN

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

% -

200

PI

(LL-

PL)

Sheet A4

% -

4

% M

oist

ure

Con

tent

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

US

CS

% - 200 20 40 60 80

16 32 48 64

PL LLMC

SPT N VALUE 10 20 30 40

Poc

ket

Pen

.(t

sf)


BORING NUMBER B-3

CLIENT CDM Smith




CQ

C S

TA

ND

AR

D L

OG

W/ P

OC

KE

T P

EN

18-

062_

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


128

>>


SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

19

39

26

8

3

15

22

100

100

85

72

89

3.6

8.2

12.1

0.5

1.0

5-8-3(11)

10-17-23(40)

12-23-50/4"

5-9-15(24)

6-8-11(19)

10-26-26(52)

11-15-18(33)

SM

SC

SC

SP-SM

SP

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Silty, Dark Brown to Tannish Brown, Medium Dense, Moist.

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Clayey, Whittish Brown to Tannish Brown, Dense, Moist with calcareous material.- Dense caliche layer below approxiamtely 2-1/2 feet.Layer appears to extend from about 2-1/2 to 6-1/2feet.

- Very dense at approx. 5 feet.

- Fine to coarse grained, medium dense below approx.7-1/2 feet.

SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Poorly Graded,Grayish Brown to Multicolored, Very Dense, Dry withsilt and gravel.

SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Poorly Graded,Grayish Brown to Multicolored, Dense, Dry.



LOGGED BY VA



CHECKED BY JLA




AFTER DRILLING ---



COMPLETED 4/10/19

DRILLED BY MN

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

% -

200

PI

(LL-

PL)

Sheet A5

% -

4

% M

oist

ure

Con

tent

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

US

CS

% - 200 20 40 60 80

16 32 48 64

PL LLMC

SPT N VALUE 10 20 30 40

Poc

ket

Pen

.(t

sf)


BORING NUMBER B-4

CLIENT CDM Smith




CQ

C S

TA

ND

AR

D L

OG

W/ P

OC

KE

T P

EN

18-

062_

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


>>

>>

McRae Booster Station

SS1

SS2

SS3

SS4

SS5

SS6

SS7

32

26

5

9

12

11

94

89

68

65

7.2

9.6

2.1

3.5

10-9-8(17)

16-16-16(32)

7-12-12(24)

12-16-18(34)

6-9-10(19)

9-15-30(45)

20-24-25(49)

SC

SC

SP-SM

SP-SM

SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Clayey, Dark Brownto Tannish Brown, Medium Dense, Moist.

- Dense, whittish brown with calcareous material atapprox. 2-1/2 feet.- Dense caliche layer below approxiamtely 2-1/2 feet.Layer appears to extend from about 2-1/2 to 4 feet.

- Fine to coarse grained, medium dense at approx. 5feet.

- Dense below approx. 7-1/2 feet.

SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Poorly Graded, Reddish Brown to Multicolored, Medium Dense, Dry to Slightly Moist with silt and fine gravel.

- Dense below approx. 15 feet.



LOGGED BY VA



CHECKED BY JLA




AFTER DRILLING ---



COMPLETED 4/10/19

DRILLED BY MN

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LOG

SA

MP

LE T

YP

EN

UM

BE

R

% -

200

PI

(LL-

PL)

Sheet A6

% -

4

% M

oist

ure

Con

tent

BLO

WC

OU

NT

S(N

VA

LUE

)

US

CS

% - 200 20 40 60 80

16 32 48 64

PL LLMC

SPT N VALUE 10 20 30 40

Poc

ket

Pen

.(t

sf)


BORING NUMBER B-5

CLIENT CDM Smith




CQ

C S

TA

ND

AR

D L

OG

W/ P

OC

KE

T P

EN

18-

062_

LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

BOREHOLE DEPTH Classification PL PI Cc Cu

39 18

0.85 4.20

27.0

43.0

14.0

6.0

GRAVEL SANDSILT OR CLAY

1403 4 20 406 603 10024 16 30

%Clay

0.119

0.083

0.205

0.225

0.252

0.17

0.922

0.5

25

19

25

25

1 2006 101.5 8 143/4 3/8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

SOIL PARTICLE SIZEANALYSIS TESTS

Test Method: ASTM D6913

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

LL

21

D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand4.0

6.0

24.0

18.0

fine coarse

501/2HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

SILTY SAND(SM)

CLAYEY SAND(SC)

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT and GRAVEL(SP-SM)

0.0 - 1.5

2.5 - 4.0

10.0 - 11.5

15.0 - 16.5

BOREHOLE DEPTH D100 %Silt69.0

51.0

62.0

76.0

0.0 - 1.5

2.5 - 4.0

10.0 - 11.5

15.0 - 16.5

COBBLEScoarse medium fine

CLIENT CDM Smith




GR

AIN

SIZ

E 1

8-06

2_LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


Sheet A7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

BOREHOLE DEPTH Classification PL PI Cc Cu25

35

34

13

21

21

53.0

55.0

49.0

17.0


1403 4 20 406 603 10024 16 30

%Clay

0.163

0.097

0.092

0.135

0.38

9.5

9.5

19

12.5

1 2006 101.5 8 143/4 3/8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT



B-2

B-2

B-2

B-2


LL12

14

13


4.0

8.0

6.0

fine coarse


B-2

B-2

B-2

B-2

SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)

SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)

CLAYEY SAND(SC)

SILTY SAND(SM)

2.5 - 4.0

7.5 - 9.0

10.0 - 11.5

18.5 - 20.0


41.0

43.0

77.0

2.5 - 4.0

7.5 - 9.0

10.0 - 11.5

18.5 - 20.0


CLIENT CDM Smith




GR

AIN

SIZ

E 1

8-06

2_LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


Sheet A8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100


33

NP

128

13

15

NP

104

0.94 5.32

23.0

26.0

12.0

95.0


1403 4 20 406 603 10024 16 30

%Clay0.094

0.085

0.154

0.233

0.21

0.368

19

4.75

19

4.75

1 2006 101.5 8 143/4 3/8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT



B-3

B-3

B-3

B-3


LL19

18

NP

24


0.0

14.0

0.0

fine coarse


B-3

B-3

B-3

B-3

CLAYEY SAND(SC)

CLAYEY SAND(SC)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT(SP-SM)

FAT CLAY(CH)

0.0 - 1.5

5.0 - 6.5

7.5 - 9.0

15.0 - 16.5


74.0

74.0

5.0

0.0 - 1.5

5.0 - 6.5

7.5 - 9.0

15.0 - 16.5


CLIENT CDM Smith




GR

AIN

SIZ

E 1

8-06

2_LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


Sheet A9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

BOREHOLE DEPTH Classification PL PI Cc Cu

37

40

15

22

0.61

0.79

11.03

5.62

19.0

39.0

26.0

8.0

3.0


1403 4 20 406 603 10024 16 30

%Clay

0.106

0.181

0.096

0.091

0.275

0.38

0.202

0.15

0.466

1.17

1.016

4.75

4.75

19

25

19

1 2006 101.5 8 143/4 3/8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT



B-4

B-4

B-4

B-4

B-4


LL

22

18


0.0

15.0

28.0

11.0

fine coarse


B-4

B-4

B-4

B-4

B-4

SILTY SAND(SM)

CLAYEY SAND(SC)

CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL(SC)


POORLY GRADED SAND(SP)

0.0 - 1.5

2.5 - 4.0

7.5 - 9.0

15.0 - 16.5

18.5 - 20.0


61.0

59.0

64.0

86.0

0.0 - 1.5

2.5 - 4.0

7.5 - 9.0

15.0 - 16.5

18.5 - 20.0


CLIENT CDM Smith




GR

AIN

SIZ

E 1

8-06

2_LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


Sheet A10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100


32

12

11

0.36

0.49

11.63

35.78

32.0

26.0

5.0

9.0


1403 4 20 406 603 10024 16 30

%Clay

0.161

0.086

0.089

0.331

0.361

0.221

0.339

1.875

3.082

19

19

37.5

19

1 2006 101.5 8 143/4 3/8

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT



B-5

B-5

B-5

B-5


LL15

21


11.0

32.0

35.0

fine coarse


B-5

B-5

B-5

B-5

CLAYEY SAND(SC)

CLAYEY SAND(SC)



0.0 - 1.5

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5

18.5 - 20.0


63.0

63.0

56.0

0.0 - 1.5

5.0 - 6.5

10.0 - 11.5

18.5 - 20.0


CLIENT CDM Smith




GR

AIN

SIZ

E 1

8-06

2_LO

GS

.GP

J G

INT

ST

D U

S L

AB

.GD

T

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


Sheet A11

B-1 0.0- 1.5 10 4.3 96 27 SM

2.5- 4.0 31 6.0 39 21 18 94 43 SC

5.0- 6.5 277.5- 9.0 19

10.0- 11.5 21 1.2 76 14 SM

15.0- 16.5 32 1.2 82 6 SP-SM

18.5- 20.0 32B-2 0.0- 1.5 10

2.5- 4.0 6 8.5 25 12 13 99 53 CL

5.0- 6.5 127.5- 9.0 14 14.5 35 14 21 96 55 CL

10.0- 11.5 27 11.0 34 13 21 92 49 4.0 SC

15.0- 16.5 2418.5- 20.0 20 7.2 94 17 SM

B-3 0.0- 1.5 14 7.5 32 19 13 98 23 SC

2.5- 4.0 105.0- 6.5 16 9.7 33 18 15 100 26 SC

7.5- 9.0 20 14.5 NP NP NP 86 12 SP-SM

10.0- 11.5 2015.0- 16.5 27 27.6 128 24 104 100 95 3.5 CH

18.5- 20.0 57B-4 0.0- 1.5 11 3.6 100 19 SM

2.5- 4.0 40 8.2 37 22 15 100 39 SC

5.0- 6.5 50 / 4"7.5- 9.0 24 12.1 40 18 22 85 26 SC

10.0- 11.5 1915.0- 16.5 52 0.5 72 8 SP-SM

18.5- 20.0 33 1.0 89 3 SP

B-5 0.0- 1.5 17 7.2 27 15 12 94 32 SC

2.5- 4.0 325.0- 6.5 24 9.6 32 21 11 89 26 SC

7.5- 9.0 3410.0- 11.5 19 2.1 68 5 SP-SM

15.0- 16.5 4518.5- 20.0 49 3.5 65 9 SP-SM

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

WaterContent

(%)Borehole % Passing

No. 200N - Value % Passing

No. 4

SUMMARY OF LABORATORYENGINEERING SOIL CLASSIFICATION TEST

RESULTS

Depth ClassificationPocket Pen.(tsf)

TotalUnit

Weight(pcf)

CLIENT CDM Smith




LAB

SU

MM

AR

Y 1

8-06

2_L

OG

S.G

PJ

GIN

T S

TD

US

LA

B.G

DT

TH

E IN

FO

RM

AT

ION

PR

ES

EN

TE

D S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

TH

E G

EO

TE

CH

NIC

AL

RE

PO

RT


Sheet A12

Jose Arias

Line

Jose Arias

Line

Jose Arias

Line

Jose Arias

Line

Jose Arias

Line

Jose Arias

Line

Construction Materials Testing

Geotechnical Engineering

Environmental Site Assessments

Forensic Analysis/Testing

CQC Testing and Engineering, L.L.C.

TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

PROJECT NO.: AGCQC18-062

PROJECT NAME:

PROCTOR NO.: 1 SAMPLED BY: VA

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DATE: 4/9/2019

SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 1' - 5'

SOIL TYPE/DESCRIPTION:

Sieve Analysis Test Atterberg Limits Test

Test Method: ASTM D 6913 Test Method: ASTM D 4318

Sieve Size/No.Percent

Retained

Percent

PassingLimit Test

Index Test

Result

3" 0 100 LL 37

2-1/2" 0 100 PL 20

1-1/2" 0 100 PI 17

1" 0 100

3/4" 2 98

1/2" 3 97

3/8" 3 97 Soil Classification: SC

No. 4 4 96 Test Method:

No. 10 13 87

No. 40 31 69

No. 100 55 45

No. 200 68.0 32.0

Moisture-Density Relationship TestTest Method: ASTM D 1557, Method "A"

Test Sample No.Moisture

Content (%)

Sample Dry

Density (pcf)

1 9.3 120.8

2 11.3 122.2

3 13.6 117.8

4 15.3 113.7

122.4

11.0

On Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Clayey, Whittish

Brown to Light Brown with calcareous material.

SAMPLE TEST RESULTS

SOIL MOISTURE - DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST RESULTS

SAMPLE INFORMATION

B-1

Geotechnical General Subsurface Soils Evaluation

El Paso Water - Poly Orthophosphate Feed Projects

Northeast Booster Station


ASTM D 2487

Maximum Dry Density, pcf:

Optimum Moisture Content, %: 113.0

114.0

115.0

116.0

117.0

118.0

119.0

120.0

121.0

122.0

123.0

124.0

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0

Soil

Dry

Density, pcf

Soil Moisture Content, %

Moisture - Density Curve

Sheet A13








PROJECT NAME:



SOIL SAMPLE APPROX. DEPTH: 0-5'





Retained

Percent

PassingLimit Test

Index Test

Result

3" 0 100 LL 24

2-1/2" 0 100 PL 15

1-1/2" 0 100 PI 9

1" 0 100

3/4" 0 100

1/2" 1 99



No. 10 13 87

No. 40 29 71

No. 100 40 60

No. 200 54.0 46.0



Content (%)

Sample Dry

Density (pcf)

1 7.7 119.0

2 9.9 123.7

3 11.5 120.4

4 13.6 113.5

123.7

10.0

ASTM D 2487


Optimum Moisture Content, %:

On Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Coarse Grained, Clayey, Whittish

Brown to Tannish Brown with clay nodules.

SAMPLE TEST RESULTS


SAMPLE INFORMATION

B-2





113.0

114.0

115.0

116.0

117.0

118.0

119.0

120.0

121.0

122.0

123.0

124.0

125.0

7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

Soil

Dry

Density, pcf



Sheet A14








PROJECT NAME:








Retained

Percent

PassingLimit Test

Index Test

Result

3" 0 100 LL 32

2-1/2" 0 100 PL 17

1-1/2" 0 100 PI 15

1" 0 100

3/4" 0 100

1/2" 0 100



No. 10 2 98

No. 40 17 83

No. 100 56 44

No. 200 74.5 25.5



Content (%)

Sample Dry

Density (pcf)

1 7.2 120.0

2 9.8 123.0

3 11.7 122.8

4 13.7 118.2

123.4

10.7

ASTM D 2487



On Site Subsurface Soils /SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Clayey, Reddish

Brown to Tannish Brown.

SAMPLE TEST RESULTS


SAMPLE INFORMATION

B-3





117.0

118.0

119.0

120.0

121.0

122.0

123.0

124.0

7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

Soil

Dry

Density, pcf



Sheet A15








PROJECT NAME:








Retained

Percent

PassingLimit Test

Index Test

Result

3" 0 100 LL 33

2-1/2" 0 100 PL 18

1-1/2" 0 100 PI 15

1" 0 100

3/4" 0 100

1/2" 0 100



No. 10 2 98

No. 40 19 81

No. 100 44 56

No. 200 66.4 33.6



Content (%)

Sample Dry

Density (pcf)

1 6.6 120.0

2 8.5 123.2

3 10.8 123.5

4 12.5 119.3

123.8

9.9

ASTM D 2487



On Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Clayey, Whittish

Brown to Tannish Brown with calcareous material.

SAMPLE TEST RESULTS


SAMPLE INFORMATION

B-4



McCrae Booster Station


119.0

119.5

120.0

120.5

121.0

121.5

122.0

122.5

123.0

123.5

124.0

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0

Soil

Dry

Density, pcf



Sheet A16







PROJECT NO.:

PROJECT NAME:








Retained

Percent

PassingLimit Test

Index Test

Result

3" 0 100 LL 39

2-1/2" 0 100 PL 20

1-1/2" 0 100 PI 19

1" 0 100

3/4" 0 100

1/2" 0 100



No. 10 10 90

No. 40 26 74

No. 100 47 53

No. 200 55.9 44.1

Moisture-Density Relationship TestTest Method: ASTM D 1557, Method "B"


Content (%)

Sample Dry

Density (pcf)

1 9.7 114.8

2 11.7 118.6

3 13.9 117.6

4 15.7 114.3

118.7

12.2

On Site Subsurface Soils / SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Clayey, Dark

Brown to Tannish Brown.

SAMPLE TEST RESULTS


SAMPLE INFORMATION

B-5

AGCQC18-062





ASTM D 2487


Optimum Moisture Content, %: 114.0

115.0

116.0

117.0

118.0

119.0

120.0

9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0

Soil

Dry

Density, pcf



Sheet A17


Environmental Site AssessmentsForensic Analysis/Testing

APPENDIX B

“People Committed to Delivering Top-Quality Services Consistently”


Environmental Site Assessments Forensic Analysis /Testing

CQC Testing and Engineering, LLC. Sheet B1 TBPE Firm Registration No. F-10632

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TECHNICAL REFERENCE INFORMATION

DEFINITION OF DESCRIPTIVE TERMS

DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS SPT N Value Relative Density SPT N Value Consistency < 4 Very Loose < 2 Very Soft 4 – 10 Loose 2 – 4 Soft 11 – 30 Med. Dense 5 – 8 Medium Stiff 31 – 50 Dense 9 – 15 Stiff 50 – 80 Very Dense 16 – 50 Very Stiff

> 80 Hard > 80 Very Hard

DEGREE OF PLASTICITY

Nonplastic – Has no cohesion; will not roll into a thread. Trace of Plasticity – Barely hold its shape when rolled into a thread. Low Plasticity – Has sufficient cohesion to form a thread but will

quickly rupture when deformed. Med. Plasticity – Has considerable cohesion. Can be molded into a

thread and will withstand considerable deformation without rupture.

High Plasticity – Can be kneaded like dough without trace of rupture.

MOISTURE DESCRIPTIONS

GRANULAR SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Dry No Apparent Moisture No Apparent Moisture Slightly Moist < Than 3% by Weight < Less Than Plastic Limit Moist 3% to 9% by Weight Approximately Plastic Limit Very Moist > 9% by Weight > than PL but < than LLWet Submerged or Saturated Submerged or Saturated

PLASTICITY Cohesion Plasticity Degree of TSF Index Plasticity 0-0.125 0-5 None 0.125-0.25 5-10 Low 0.25-0.5 10-20 Moderate 0.5-1.0 20-40 Plastic 1.0-2.0 > 40 Highly Plastic

> 2.0ABBREVIATIONS

V. – Very Fl. – Fairly Sl. – Slightly Med. – Medium Tr. – Trace < - Less Than > - Greater Than PL – Plastic LimitMod. – Moderately




SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART




GEOTECHNICAL REPORT SOIL CLASSIFICATION REFERENCE INFORMATION

Cohesive Soil Classification Chart

U.S. STANDARD SIEVE

12” 3” ¾” 4 10 40 200 BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 152 76.2 19.1 4.76 2.00 0.420 0.074 0.002

SOIL GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

Laboratory Test Methods:

Moisture Content Tests:

Moisture Contents are determined from representative portions of a soil sample. The samples initial weight is recorded and it is then dried to a constant weight. From this data the moisture content is calculated.

Atterberg Limit Tests:

Liquid Limit (LL), Plastic Limit (PL) and Shrinkage Limit (SL) tests are performed to aid in the classification of soils and to determine the plasticity and volume change characteristics of the materials. The Liquid Limit is the minimum moisture content at which a soil will flow as a heavy viscous fluid. The Plastic Limit is the minimum moisture content at which the soil behaves as a plastic material. The Shrinkage Limit is the moisture content below which no further volume change will take place with continued drying. The Plasticity Index (PI) is the numeric difference between the Liquid Limit and the Plastic Limit and indicates the range of moisture content over which a soil remains plastic.

Grain Size Distribution Test (Particle Size Analysis, Sieve Analysis):

The distribution of soils finer than the No. 200 sieve is determined by passing a representative soil sample through a standard set of nested sieves. The weight of material retained on each sieve is determined and the percentage passing (or retained) is calculated. For determination of the percentage of material finer than the No. 200 sieve, the specimen is first washed through the sieve. The distribution of the materials finer than the No. 200 is determined by use of the different size particles while suspended in water.

CQC TESTING AND ENGINEERING, L.L.C.

TBPE FIRM REGISTRATION NO. F-10632 4606 TITANIC AVE.

EL PASO, TEXAS 79904 PH.: (915-771-7766 FX.: (915) 771-7786